A Stowmarket lorry driver who left two officers with serious injuries after smashing into a police car has been jailed.
On the morning of November 25 last year, Lincolnshire Police officers Christopher Windsor-Beck and Matt Brand were called out to reports of a broken-down lorry on the A1 at Colsterworth.
While awaiting recovery, a second lorry being driven by Christopher Swain ploughed into the back of their stationary police car.
Swain, of St Peter’s Road, Stowmarket, had ignored a lane closure before the crash.
Off his ■■■■ on cannabis too. What a shining example of a (presumably) home grown imbecile.
I’d be interested to see what the “lane closure” he ignored was however as I’d passed sometime earlier and there was only the local bobbies with the blues on sat behind the breakdown. Obviously that alone should have been enough to warn the numpty.
the maoster:
Off his ■■■■ on cannabis too. What a shining example of a (presumably) home grown imbecile.
I’d be interested to see what the “lane closure” he ignored was however as I’d passed sometime earlier and there was only the local bobbies with the blues on sat behind the breakdown. Obviously that alone should have been enough to warn the numpty.
Yes, a bit too much faith in the protective power of the blue light I guess.
Once he had the cannabis result I am afraid he was only destined for the one place though.
Good to see that the 2 officers are back at work though, and that’s not meant to be sarcastic as the car looks a mess.
the maoster:
Off his ■■■■ on cannabis too. What a shining example of a (presumably) home grown imbecile.
I’d be interested to see what the “lane closure” he ignored was however as I’d passed sometime earlier and there was only the local bobbies with the blues on sat behind the breakdown. Obviously that alone should have been enough to warn the numpty.
Yes, a bit too much faith in the protective power of the blue light I guess.
Once he had the cannabis result I am afraid he was only destined for the one place though.
Good to see that the 2 officers are back at work though, and that’s not meant to be sarcastic as the car looks a mess.
What an utterly deranged, moronic law tho. Its like saying if you had a shandy 10 hours ago you are unsafe to drive through alcohol.
JeffA:
What an utterly deranged, moronic law tho. Its like saying if you had a shandy 10 hours ago you are unsafe to drive through alcohol.
Without wanting to get into the rights or wrongs of cannabis use (I may have partaken in the past) there is a legally defined limit, as with alcohol, where you are deemed to likely be impaired whilst driving. I imagine if trace amounts of cannabis showed in his system it would have been treated the same as trace amounts of alcohol, in as much as it wouldn’t have even been reported.
So slightly different to one shandy 10 hours ago, maybe a better comparison would be ten pints ten hours ago?
JeffA:
What an utterly deranged, moronic law tho. Its like saying if you had a shandy 10 hours ago you are unsafe to drive through alcohol.
Without wanting to get into the rights or wrongs of cannabis use (I may have partaken in the past) there is a legally defined limit, as with alcohol, where you are deemed to likely be impaired whilst driving. I imagine if trace amounts of cannabis showed in his system it would have been treated the same as trace amounts of alcohol, in as much as it wouldn’t have even been reported.
So slightly different to one shandy 10 hours ago, maybe a better comparison would be ten pints ten hours ago?
I think the point is if someone thinks they can have say one spliff and be ok to drive then they will no doubt have 3 or 4 or 5 etc. If your smoking weed you should not be anywhere near a hgv.
They remove licences from people for having sometimes irrelavant medical conditions so if a person is prescribed cannabis they should not be driving a hgv.
noticed a copper today parked up on the orwell bridge blues on behind a car wreck. but he wasnt in the car ,was stood away , up against the rail , not for him getting rear ended
JeffA:
What an utterly deranged, moronic law tho. Its like saying if you had a shandy 10 hours ago you are unsafe to drive through alcohol.
Without wanting to get into the rights or wrongs of cannabis use (I may have partaken in the past) there is a legally defined limit, as with alcohol, where you are deemed to likely be impaired whilst driving. I imagine if trace amounts of cannabis showed in his system it would have been treated the same as trace amounts of alcohol, in as much as it wouldn’t have even been reported.
So slightly different to one shandy 10 hours ago, maybe a better comparison would be ten pints ten hours ago?
Medical cannabis has had the THC removed, so you can’t get stoned on it.
I think the point is if someone thinks they can have say one spliff and be ok to drive then they will no doubt have 3 or 4 or 5 etc. If your smoking weed you should not be anywhere near a hgv.
They remove licences from people for having sometimes irrelavant medical conditions so if a person is prescribed cannabis they should not be driving a hgv.
Medical cannabis has had the TCH removed from it, so you can’t get stoned.
JeffA:
What an utterly deranged, moronic law tho. Its like saying if you had a shandy 10 hours ago you are unsafe to drive through alcohol.
Without wanting to get into the rights or wrongs of cannabis use (I may have partaken in the past) there is a legally defined limit, as with alcohol, where you are deemed to likely be impaired whilst driving. I imagine if trace amounts of cannabis showed in his system it would have been treated the same as trace amounts of alcohol, in as much as it wouldn’t have even been reported.
So slightly different to one shandy 10 hours ago, maybe a better comparison would be ten pints ten hours ago?
No, its not a level where anyone would be “impaired” - 2ug is one puff on a joint the day before you drive, or if you eat it - 5 or 6 days later. Its not like the alcohol level at all. The cannabis level is a trace amount.
Its nothing to do with road safety. Most lawyers view it as a sneaky way of prohibiting the use of cannabis - because if you have some saturday night you will test positive the friday after - so the cunning plan is to stop cannabis use by threatening them with a driving ban for trace amounts
JeffA:
What an utterly deranged, moronic law tho. Its like saying if you had a shandy 10 hours ago you are unsafe to drive through alcohol.
Without wanting to get into the rights or wrongs of cannabis use (I may have partaken in the past) there is a legally defined limit, as with alcohol, where you are deemed to likely be impaired whilst driving. I imagine if trace amounts of cannabis showed in his system it would have been treated the same as trace amounts of alcohol, in as much as it wouldn’t have even been reported.
So slightly different to one shandy 10 hours ago, maybe a better comparison would be ten pints ten hours ago?
I think the point is if someone thinks they can have say one spliff and be ok to drive then they will no doubt have 3 or 4 or 5 etc. If your smoking weed you should not be anywhere near a hgv.
They remove licences from people for having sometimes irrelavant medical conditions so if a person is prescribed cannabis they should not be driving a hgv.
Sure but thats not the point is it - the level isnt set at 70 or 80ug - a level of someone smoking cannabis - its set at 2ug which is a trace amount from some you had 10 days ago.
